Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Goes well beyond annotations: it discloses that approve publishes immediately, queue defers to the Space queue, and pass silently removes the submission without notifying the submitter. It also flags the external side effect ('Reaches other people'), the default per-call confirmation, and the required Cotlet API key scope.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the action meanings, which is the most important content. Slightly repetitive: the per-call confirmation idea appears twice ('By default you confirm each call' and 'confirm with the user before each call').

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers effects, permission requirements, auth scope, and confirmation behavior. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and safely.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning to the 'action' enum by explaining the side effect of each value. The space_id/submission_id sourcing is left to the schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb set (approve/queue/pass) and resource (follower submission), and spells out the effect of each branch. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like list_space_submissions or post_to_space without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Names the required role ('Space admins and moderators only') and gives per-action conditions plus a confirmation requirement, which is real usage context. It doesn't explicitly route to a sibling tool (e.g. list_space_submissions for finding the ID), but no other tool performs this review action, so the guidance is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.